You ask why the question of whether crows are rational matters. I can think of two big reasons, right off the top of my head. One is religious and the other is political. First, a demonstration that non-human animals are capable of abstract reasoning of any sort – let alone reasoning about hidden causal agents – would discredit claims made by most adherents of Judaism, Christianity and Islam that human beings alone are made in the image of God, thanks to their possession of reason (see here and here and here). After all, if other animals can reason too, then we’re obviously no longer unique, are we?

Second, if other animals are considered to be capable of reasoning, then political rights for these animals are sure to follow. The recent Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness recently declared that “Evidence of near human-like levels of consciousness has been most dramatically observed in African grey parrots” (italics mine) – an assertion that I criticized here. At the 2012 meeting in Vancouver, Canada, of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, support was reiterated for a cetacean bill of rights, listing cetaceans as “non-human persons.”

Shorter answer: I don't want animals to be able to think, therefore they don't.

Upright Biped: Jerad, are you familiar with the Pod Kopiste lizards transported to Pod Mrcaru in 1971?

After just a few generations on the island, the Pod Mrcaru lizards had developed cecal vales in their guts to help them digest nutrients from their new plant-laden diets, as well as changing their jaw structures, and social behaviors.

Did they just get lucky?

They were tested after 36 years. 100% genetic identity.

That would be in 2007, which is this paper:

Quote

Herrel et al., Rapid large-scale evolutionary divergence in morphology and performance associated with exploitation of a different dietary resource, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2007: Genetic mitochondrial DNA analyses indicate that the lizards currently on Pod Mr?aru are indeed P. sicula and are genetically indistinguishable from lizards from the source population.

The genetic identity refers to mitochondrial DNA, which would have little to do with the observed morphological difference. They used mitochondrial DNA just to prove the connection to the founding population. They suggest a genetic basis rather than a developmental effect for the morphological adaptation as very young juveniles exhibit the cecal valves.

Quote

Herrel et al., Rapid large-scale evolutionary divergence in morphology and performance associated with exploitation of a different dietary resource, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2007: Although the presence of cecal valves and large heads in hatchlings and juveniles suggests a genetic basis for these differences, further studies investigating the potential role of phenotypic plasticity and/or maternal effects in the divergence between populations are needed.

Edited by Zachriel on Sep. 27 2012,17:54

--------------Proudly banned threefour five times by Uncommon Descent.There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

You ask why the question of whether crows are rational matters. I can think of two big reasons, right off the top of my head. One is religious and the other is political. First, a demonstration that non-human animals are capable of abstract reasoning of any sort – let alone reasoning about hidden causal agents – would discredit claims made by most adherents of Judaism, Christianity and Islam that human beings alone are made in the image of God, thanks to their possession of reason (see here and here and here). After all, if other animals can reason too, then we’re obviously no longer unique, are we?

Second, if other animals are considered to be capable of reasoning, then political rights for these animals are sure to follow. The recent Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness recently declared that “Evidence of near human-like levels of consciousness has been most dramatically observed in African grey parrots” (italics mine) – an assertion that I criticized here. At the 2012 meeting in Vancouver, Canada, of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, support was reiterated for a cetacean bill of rights, listing cetaceans as “non-human persons.”

Shorter answer: I don't want animals to be able to think, therefore they don't.

It's like the fool sat down and TRIED to think of the most fallacious set of arguments from consequences that was possible for this dataset. fuck me that is hilarious

CeilingCat, 'Ras,

In that passage, Torley is explaining why the question matters, not why he thinks his answer is correct.

There are plenty of real problems with Torley's reasoning. No need to invent bogus ones.

I was being charitable. Torley knows that non-human animals can't think because they aren't made in the image of God. See Thomas Acquinas and Edward Feser for the details.

Confronted with evidence that crows do reason, he grabs every straw he can find to "disprove" this apostasy.

The best straw he can come up with is that crows can't speak, therefore they can't explain their reasoning to us, therefore Jesus. Bull shit.

His second straw:

Quote

Think about that. These crows supposedly learn how to reason without explicit instruction of any sort, and without even learning through imitation? I have t say I find that philosophically absurd.

What do you say to something like this? They figured it out themselves, therefore they can't reason? More BS.

Quote

My third reason for pouring cold water on the claim that crows are capable of reasoning about hidden causal agents is that in order to reason about causal agents in the first place, you need to be able to understand the notion of a cause, which is quite a sophisticated concept. Even eminent philosophers have a hard time explaining it.

So if a crow's not as smart as an eminent philosopher, he can't think? That's PhD (Piled higher and Deeper) grade BS.

Sorry, but the real reason for Torley's "reasoning" are in the initial quotes above. There's no way he can think critically in the face of his overriding Thomistic beliefs. It would absolutely kill Baby Jesus. And besides, if we let the crows get away with this, next thing you know whales and parrots will be demanding the vote and don't even let him get started on chimps. BS^2

Edited by CeilingCat on Sep. 28 2012,04:41

--------------...after reviewing the arguments, Iâ€™m inclined to believe that the critics of ENCODEâ€™s bold claim were mostly right, and that the proportion of our genome which is functional is probably between 10 and 20%. --Vincent Torley, uncommondescent.com 1/1/2016

You ask why the question of whether crows are rational matters. I can think of two big reasons, right off the top of my head. One is religious and the other is political. First, a demonstration that non-human animals are capable of abstract reasoning of any sort – let alone reasoning about hidden causal agents – would discredit claims made by most adherents of Judaism, Christianity and Islam that human beings alone are made in the image of God, thanks to their possession of reason (see here and here and here). After all, if other animals can reason too, then we’re obviously no longer unique, are we?

Second, if other animals are considered to be capable of reasoning, then political rights for these animals are sure to follow. The recent Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness recently declared that “Evidence of near human-like levels of consciousness has been most dramatically observed in African grey parrots” (italics mine) – an assertion that I criticized here. At the 2012 meeting in Vancouver, Canada, of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, support was reiterated for a cetacean bill of rights, listing cetaceans as “non-human persons.”

Shorter answer: I don't want animals to be able to think, therefore they don't.

It's like the fool sat down and TRIED to think of the most fallacious set of arguments from consequences that was possible for this dataset. fuck me that is hilarious

CeilingCat, 'Ras,

In that passage, Torley is explaining why the question matters, not why he thinks his answer is correct.

There are plenty of real problems with Torley's reasoning. No need to invent bogus ones.

I was being charitable. Torley knows that non-human animals can't think because they aren't made in the image of God. See Thomas Acquinas and Edward Feser for the details.

Confronted with evidence that crows do reason, he grabs every straw he can find to "disprove" this apostasy.

The best straw he can come up with is that crows can't speak, therefore they can't explain their reasoning to us, therefore Jesus. Bull shit.

His second straw:

Quote

Think about that. These crows supposedly learn how to reason without explicit instruction of any sort, and without even learning through imitation? I have t say I find that philosophically absurd.

What do you say to something like this? They figured it out themselves, therefore they can't reason? More BS.

Quote

My third reason for pouring cold water on the claim that crows are capable of reasoning about hidden causal agents is that in order to reason about causal agents in the first place, you need to be able to understand the notion of a cause, which is quite a sophisticated concept. Even eminent philosophers have a hard time explaining it.

So if a crow's not as smart as an eminent philosopher, he can't think? That's PhD (Piled higher and Deeper) grade BS.

Sorry, but the real reason for Torley's "reasoning" are in the initial quotes above. There's no way he can think critically in the face of his overriding Thomistic beliefs. It would absolutely kill Baby Jesus. And besides, if we let the crows get away with this, next thing you know whales and parrots will be demanding the vote and don't even let him get started on chimps. BS^2

I think he is still coming to terms with the revelation, contrary to the beliefs of many men in the 19th century, that women were indeed capable of rational thought and abstract reasoning.

I guess he deserves a break, first they go and grant Women the power of abstract reasoning, and let them vote, now they are trying to claim that the dumb animals are capable of thought ... next they will be claiming that machines can play chess!

kf has not banned anyone. I question whether kf even has the power to ban someone, even from threads hosted or authored by kf.

Mung will now be educated on the entanglement of banned-notbanned states, and of virtual commenters that pop in and out of existence.

Quote

For cause of persistently belligerent and disruptive side-tracking and atmosphere poisoning behaviour, I applied “living room rules” to O/L; inviting him to leave, and when he then tried to ignore this I removed further posts. He popped back up without apology and even went on to suggest that he could do the equivalent of coming into my living room to talk with someone else while ignoring a serious matter with his “host,” I again removed further posts by him until he got the message. He can easily enough come back to threads I own, by simply apologising for his behaviour and making amends. That this is interpreted as “banning,” tells us that the plain intent is to continue to be disruptive. Civility and focus on issues instead of poisoning and polarising the atmosphere is the price of dialogue. Why is that so hard for objectors to design to accept? Do they understand that this strongly suggests that all they have is hostility/prejudice rather than substance? At any rate the thread has gone on hundreds of comments beyond that point, and it has obviously been a fairly positive and on-focus thread. KF

KF, you are more than welcome to comment here or at The Skeptical Zone. You don't even have to apologize.

Government Is Not God is a political action committee for social conservatives founded in 1992 by William J. Murray who is currently the chairman of the Religious Freedom Coalition. The mission of Government Is Not God - PAC is the election to Congress of men and women who hold conservative beliefs on both moral and economic issues.

Remember that tedious Tard from TSZ? If it's the same guy then he's simply a liar, according to the chart on that link.

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

You ask why the question of whether crows are rational matters. I can think of two big reasons, right off the top of my head. One is religious and the other is political. First, a demonstration that non-human animals are capable of abstract reasoning of any sort – let alone reasoning about hidden causal agents – would discredit claims made by most adherents of Judaism, Christianity and Islam that human beings alone are made in the image of God, thanks to their possession of reason (see here and here and here). After all, if other animals can reason too, then we’re obviously no longer unique, are we?

Second, if other animals are considered to be capable of reasoning, then political rights for these animals are sure to follow. The recent Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness recently declared that “Evidence of near human-like levels of consciousness has been most dramatically observed in African grey parrots” (italics mine) – an assertion that I criticized here. At the 2012 meeting in Vancouver, Canada, of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, support was reiterated for a cetacean bill of rights, listing cetaceans as “non-human persons.”

Shorter answer: I don't want animals to be able to think, therefore they don't.

It's like the fool sat down and TRIED to think of the most fallacious set of arguments from consequences that was possible for this dataset. fuck me that is hilarious

CeilingCat, 'Ras,

In that passage, Torley is explaining why the question matters, not why he thinks his answer is correct.

There are plenty of real problems with Torley's reasoning. No need to invent bogus ones.

I was being charitable. Torley knows that non-human animals can't think because they aren't made in the image of God. See Thomas Acquinas and Edward Feser for the details.

Confronted with evidence that crows do reason, he grabs every straw he can find to "disprove" this apostasy.

The best straw he can come up with is that crows can't speak, therefore they can't explain their reasoning to us, therefore Jesus. Bull shit.

His second straw:

Quote

Think about that. These crows supposedly learn how to reason without explicit instruction of any sort, and without even learning through imitation? I have t say I find that philosophically absurd.

What do you say to something like this? They figured it out themselves, therefore they can't reason? More BS.

Quote

My third reason for pouring cold water on the claim that crows are capable of reasoning about hidden causal agents is that in order to reason about causal agents in the first place, you need to be able to understand the notion of a cause, which is quite a sophisticated concept. Even eminent philosophers have a hard time explaining it.

So if a crow's not as smart as an eminent philosopher, he can't think? That's PhD (Piled higher and Deeper) grade BS.

Sorry, but the real reason for Torley's "reasoning" are in the initial quotes above. There's no way he can think critically in the face of his overriding Thomistic beliefs. It would absolutely kill Baby Jesus. And besides, if we let the crows get away with this, next thing you know whales and parrots will be demanding the vote and don't even let him get started on chimps. BS^2

I think he is still coming to terms with the revelation, contrary to the beliefs of many men in the 19th century, that women were indeed capable of rational thought and abstract reasoning.

I guess he deserves a break, first they go and grant Women the power of abstract reasoning, and let them vote, now they are trying to claim that the dumb animals are capable of thought ... next they will be claiming that machines can play chess!

oh, wait ....

Indeed it must come as a shock to VJT that women play golf in pants no less and sometimes become Prime Ministers.

Next he'll be crowing that John Thomas isn't sticking up for himself.

It must be hard being a conservative in a jam, he's just a prick in a pickle.

kf has not banned anyone. I question whether kf even has the power to ban someone, even from threads hosted or authored by kf.

Mung will now be educated on the entanglement of banned-notbanned states, and of virtual commenters that pop in and out of existence.

Quote

For cause of persistently belligerent and disruptive side-tracking and atmosphere poisoning behaviour, I applied “living room rules” to O/L; inviting him to leave, and when he then tried to ignore this I removed further posts. He popped back up without apology and even went on to suggest that he could do the equivalent of coming into my living room to talk with someone else while ignoring a serious matter with his “host,” I again removed further posts by him until he got the message. He can easily enough come back to threads I own, by simply apologising for his behaviour and making amends. That this is interpreted as “banning,” tells us that the plain intent is to continue to be disruptive. Civility and focus on issues instead of poisoning and polarising the atmosphere is the price of dialogue. Why is that so hard for objectors to design to accept? Do they understand that this strongly suggests that all they have is hostility/prejudice rather than substance? At any rate the thread has gone on hundreds of comments beyond that point, and it has obviously been a fairly positive and on-focus thread. KF

KF, you are more than welcome to comment here or at The Skeptical Zone. You don't even have to apologize.

sign-is-a-default-inference/#comment-434853]Mung[/URL]: Perhaps because you are full of {vulgarity deleted, KF}.

They are disappearing up their own South of Dixie fundament.

Teh oozlum bird

Quote

The oozlum bird, also spelled ouzelum, is a legendary creature found in Australian and British folk tales and legends. Some versions have it that, when startled, the bird will take off and fly around in ever-decreasing circles until it manages to fly up itself, disappearing completely, which adds to its rarity.[1] Other sources state that the bird flies backwards so that it can admire its own beautiful tail feathers, or because while it does not know where it is going, it likes to know where it has been.[2]

The Oxford English Dictionary describes it as "A mythical bird displaying ridiculous behaviour" and speculates that the word could have been suggested by the word ouzel, meaning a blackbird (turdus merula). The earliest citation recorded by the dictionary dates from 1858.[3]

A variant of the oozlum, possibly a mutation, is the weejy weejy bird, which has only one wing which causes it to fly in tighter, faster, smaller circles until it disappears up its own fundament. The oozlefinch is an American relative without feathers that flies backwards ("to keep dust, trivia, and other inconsequentia out of his eyes") at supersonic speeds, and preys on enemy bombers, which it rips from the sky.[4][5] The oozlefinch has been adopted as the unofficial mascot of the United States Air Defense Artillery.

The oozlum bird was the subject of the British 1970 film, Carry On Up the Jungle. There was also a recurring joke in an episode of the BBC radio comedy, The Navy Lark[7] that Lt Commander Murray (Stephen Murray) did not know what the oozlum bird was. Sub Lieutenant Phillips (Leslie Phillips) suggested that when young, oozlum birds fly straight, and it is only when they turn left that the trouble starts.

The fabulous qualities of the oozlum bird is the subject of a poem by W.T. Goodge (1862 – 1909). In the poem the oozlum bird - like the oozlefinch - is said to fly backwards, and has the singular quality of being able to fly up in the air while letting the earth turn under it. The bird is said to be large enough to bear the weight of a man

I guess he deserves a break, first they go and grant Women the power of abstract reasoning, and let them vote, now they are trying to claim that the dumb animals are capable of thought ... next they will be claiming that machines can play chess!

"Tyson also brought along a new toy -- a doll named "Darwin" -- which Chaser had never seen before. When he asked her to find it in the other room, Chaser could locate the doll amid the other toys, inferring that the new object was connected with the new word."

I'd call that thinking and reasoning. Just because animals don't speak human languages doesn't mean that animals are inferior or that humans are made in some imaginary god's image.

And many animals understand human vocalizations and/or body language/gestures better than humans understand animal vocalizations and/or body language/gestures. If humans are so fucking 'special', why can't we understand what dolphins are saying, even with the help of our so-called advanced, sophisticated, technological gadgets?

You ask why the question of whether crows are rational matters. I can think of two big reasons, right off the top of my head. One is religious and the other is political. First, a demonstration that non-human animals are capable of abstract reasoning of any sort – let alone reasoning about hidden causal agents – would discredit claims made by most adherents of Judaism, Christianity and Islam that human beings alone are made in the image of God, thanks to their possession of reason (see here and here and here). After all, if other animals can reason too, then we’re obviously no longer unique, are we?

Second, if other animals are considered to be capable of reasoning, then political rights for these animals are sure to follow. The recent Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness recently declared that “Evidence of near human-like levels of consciousness has been most dramatically observed in African grey parrots” (italics mine) – an assertion that I criticized here. At the 2012 meeting in Vancouver, Canada, of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, support was reiterated for a cetacean bill of rights, listing cetaceans as “non-human persons.”

Shorter answer: I don't want animals to be able to think, therefore they don't.

It's like the fool sat down and TRIED to think of the most fallacious set of arguments from consequences that was possible for this dataset. fuck me that is hilarious

CeilingCat, 'Ras,

In that passage, Torley is explaining why the question matters, not why he thinks his answer is correct.

There are plenty of real problems with Torley's reasoning. No need to invent bogus ones.

I was being charitable. Torley knows that non-human animals can't think because they aren't made in the image of God. See Thomas Acquinas and Edward Feser for the details.

Confronted with evidence that crows do reason, he grabs every straw he can find to "disprove" this apostasy.

The best straw he can come up with is that crows can't speak, therefore they can't explain their reasoning to us, therefore Jesus. Bull shit.

His second straw:

Quote

Think about that. These crows supposedly learn how to reason without explicit instruction of any sort, and without even learning through imitation? I have t say I find that philosophically absurd.

What do you say to something like this? They figured it out themselves, therefore they can't reason? More BS.

Quote

My third reason for pouring cold water on the claim that crows are capable of reasoning about hidden causal agents is that in order to reason about causal agents in the first place, you need to be able to understand the notion of a cause, which is quite a sophisticated concept. Even eminent philosophers have a hard time explaining it.

So if a crow's not as smart as an eminent philosopher, he can't think? That's PhD (Piled higher and Deeper) grade BS.

Sorry, but the real reason for Torley's "reasoning" are in the initial quotes above. There's no way he can think critically in the face of his overriding Thomistic beliefs. It would absolutely kill Baby Jesus. And besides, if we let the crows get away with this, next thing you know whales and parrots will be demanding the vote and don't even let him get started on chimps. BS^2

Is Torley religiously motivated? Yes.

Is he grasping at straws to avoid admitting that crows can reason? Yes.

Is he arguing that "I don't want animals to be able to think, therefore they don't," as you claimed? No. He gives other reasons, albeit bad ones.

No need to make false accusations when there are plenty of legitimate reasons to criticize his position.

--------------And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

Government Is Not God is a political action committee for social conservatives founded in 1992 by William J. Murray who is currently the chairman of the Religious Freedom Coalition. The mission of Government Is Not God - PAC is the election to Congress of men and women who hold conservative beliefs on both moral and economic issues.

Remember that tedious Tard from TSZ? If it's the same guy then he's simply a liar, according to the chart on that link.

Not the same guy.

The 'Government Is Not God' William J. Murray is the son of Madalyn Murray O'Hair. He infuriated his mother by becoming a Baptist.

The TSZ William J. Murray is more of a New Agey 'our thoughts create our realities' woo-meister.

--------------And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

"Tyson also brought along a new toy -- a doll named "Darwin" -- which Chaser had never seen before. When he asked her to find it in the other room, Chaser could locate the doll amid the other toys, inferring that the new object was connected with the new word."

I'd call that thinking and reasoning. Just because animals don't speak human languages doesn't mean that animals are inferior or that humans are made in some imaginary god's image.

And many animals understand human vocalizations and/or body language/gestures better than humans understand animal vocalizations and/or body language/gestures. If humans are so fucking 'special', why can't we understand what dolphins are saying, even with the help of our so-called advanced, sophisticated, technological gadgets?

The position of stupidest Creationist at UD is already taken. But we note and appreciate your efforts, and hope that a vacancy arises soon.

EL@TSZ wrote a GA that generated series of random 50/50 booleans, which she arbitrarily designated H and T to represent coin tosses, then mutated and evaluated according to a fitness function. But wait ... there's a problem.

Quote

If only she were actually using coin tosses, or even simulated coin tosses. But alas.

The claim that she is taking subsets of sequences of coin tosses is a flat out lie. Oh, I have no doubt she’s sincere. She really does think the claim is true. By using the symbols T and H she’s done a fine job of fooling herself and apparently many other very bright people over at TSZ.

Quote

I’m going to bang this drum again because this idea of hers that she is doing repeated coin tosses appears to be a deeply held part of her delusion.

Also to document how she has repeatedly claimed that her patterns are sequences of 500 coin tosses. They are not. My complaint isn’t that she is not tossing real coins. I can just hear that straw man coming. She is not even simulating patterns of coin tosses.

Edited by Soapy Sam on Sep. 29 2012,18:33

--------------SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G

BTW, when you make little jabs like â€śI thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,â€ť you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington

The position of stupidest Creationist at UD is already taken. But we note and appreciate your efforts, and hope that a vacancy arises soon.

EL@TSZ wrote a GA that generated series of random 50/50 booleans, which she arbitrarily designated H and T to represent coin tosses, then mutated and evaluated according to a fitness function. But wait ... there's a problem.

Quote

If only she were actually using coin tosses, or even simulated coin tosses. But alas.

The claim that she is taking subsets of sequences of coin tosses is a flat out lie. Oh, I have no doubt she’s sincere. She really does think the claim is true. By using the symbols T and H she’s done a fine job of fooling herself and apparently many other very bright people over at TSZ.

Quote

I’m going to bang this drum again because this idea of hers that she is doing repeated coin tosses appears to be a deeply held part of her delusion.

Also to document how she has repeatedly claimed that her patterns are sequences of 500 coin tosses. They are not. My complaint isn’t that she is not tossing real coins. I can just hear that straw man coming. She is not even simulating patterns of coin tosses.

"Tyson also brought along a new toy -- a doll named "Darwin" -- which Chaser had never seen before. When he asked her to find it in the other room, Chaser could locate the doll amid the other toys, inferring that the new object was connected with the new word."

I'd call that thinking and reasoning. Just because animals don't speak human languages doesn't mean that animals are inferior or that humans are made in some imaginary god's image.

And many animals understand human vocalizations and/or body language/gestures better than humans understand animal vocalizations and/or body language/gestures. If humans are so fucking 'special', why can't we understand what dolphins are saying, even with the help of our so-called advanced, sophisticated, technological gadgets?

The position of stupidest Creationist at UD is already taken. But we note and appreciate your efforts, and hope that a vacancy arises soon.

EL@TSZ wrote a GA that generated series of random 50/50 booleans, which she arbitrarily designated H and T to represent coin tosses, then mutated and evaluated according to a fitness function. But wait ... there's a problem.

Quote

If only she were actually using coin tosses, or even simulated coin tosses. But alas.

The claim that she is taking subsets of sequences of coin tosses is a flat out lie. Oh, I have no doubt she’s sincere. She really does think the claim is true. By using the symbols T and H she’s done a fine job of fooling herself and apparently many other very bright people over at TSZ.

Quote

I’m going to bang this drum again because this idea of hers that she is doing repeated coin tosses appears to be a deeply held part of her delusion.

Also to document how she has repeatedly claimed that her patterns are sequences of 500 coin tosses. They are not. My complaint isn’t that she is not tossing real coins. I can just hear that straw man coming. She is not even simulating patterns of coin tosses.

There are over 200,000 words in that thread. and most of them are from tards since they can't leave the gloryhole UD to converse

Now, I didn't go to the TSZ thread and count how many words are in that thing. But if you are not causing the tards to write at least 7-10 words for every word you write you are wasting your fucking time.

ETA after all the one social beneft we can all agree upon is that when tards are busy flecking their monitor with rage spit and pounding their keyboard with hamfists, they have no time to erode the teaching of science. So, keep them busy and get over yourself queefsniffs

Edited by Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 30 2012,10:10

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

whatever that may be. Denyse must have been desperate to publish as News again because she hurried and finished earlier than planned.

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."